Alaska Slim wrote:
Because Net neutrality pretends non-neutral behavior is always wrong, when it isn't
. Supporting it is a headwind to the industry developing itself; decreasing the pace that technology & services are created.
It misunderstands entirely that a use case exists
for non-neutral practices.
When it comes to the basis of merit, this policy lacks terribly. It also misunderstands how civil power itself should be approached.
And hell, even if it was to be approached this way; it should be at at the State Level, and emphasizing tearing down regulatory barriers to market entry
. Like when Texas reformed its permitting system to just one for ISPs to apply for that would work anywhere in the State. Ergo, cities could no longer use operating permits as a means to obstruct competition for the sitting incumbents.
Are you going to address the issue of ISPs using payment for higher speed to sell large existing businesses the ability to crush competition at all or keep going on about hypotheticals and and theories without addressing the direct negative effects on real people that your policy would have?
You’re still rehashing the same argument over and over and treating the municipal reform aspect as an either-or with Net Neutrality and ignoring my key question, why we can’t just enforce the solution if we know what it is rather than let the economy decline hoping that an unregulated market will sufficiently punish people into the action you want when they have every ability and incentive to make it worse. Or for that matter, why we can’t have NN and municipal reform at once.
You’re also saying we should tear down regulatory barriers to market entry —which is true— but you’re subtly conflating all regulation with barriers to entry and ignoring the very clear and obvious danger of the existing businesses creating barriers to entry, which they are both fully capable of doing and have a track record of attempting.
You’re good at phrasing your arguments about them tonsoibd convincing but they still really on a number of unstated givens that, once pulled out into the light, are ridiculous.
Your arguments only work when you cherry pick, ignore the parts you don’t like, gloss over the consequences for actual human beings, and ignore history and precedent.